1: %\usepackage{feynmf}

2: %\usepackage{amssymbol}

3: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2}\normalsize

4: %\input{tcilatex}

5: %\input{tcilatex}

6: 

7: 

8: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{article}

9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

10: \usepackage{amssymb}

11: \usepackage{amsmath}

12: %\usepackage{graphics}

13: %\usepackage{epsfig}

14: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}

15: %\usepackage{psfig}

16: 

17: \setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{10}

18: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=LATEX.DLL}

19: %TCIDATA{Version=5.00.0.2606}

20: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="SaveForMode" CONTENT="1">}

21: %TCIDATA{BibliographyScheme=Manual}

22: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Saturday, September 09, 2006 22:24:09}

23: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}

24: %TCIDATA{Language=American English}

25: 

26: \renewcommand{\vec}[1]{{\bf #1}}

27: \setlength{\baselineskip}{20mm}

28: \textwidth 15.0 true cm

29: \textheight 22.0 true cm

30: \headheight 0 cm

31: \headsep 0 cm

32: \topmargin 0.4 true in

33: \oddsidemargin 0.25 true in

34: \newcommand{\eqb}{\begin{equation}}

35: \newcommand{\eqe}{\end{equation}}

36: \newcommand{\dmb}{\begin{displaymath}}

37: \newcommand{\dme}{\end{displaymath}}

38: \newcommand{\pd}{\partial}

39: \newcommand{\ep}{\varepsilon}

40: \newcommand{\eab}{\begin{eqnarray}}

41: \newcommand{\eae}{\end{eqnarray}}

42: \newcommand{\ra}{\right\rangle}

43: \newcommand{\la}{\left\langle}

44: \newcommand{\e}{\mbox{e}}

45: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

46: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

47: \newcommand{\sgn}{\text{sgn}\,}

48: \newcommand{\munu}{{\mu\nu}}

49: \newcommand{\ad}{{\dot{\alpha}}}

50: \newcommand{\bd}{{\dot{\beta}}}

51: \newcommand{\La}{\Lambda}

52: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

53: %\input{tcilatex}

54: 

55: \begin{document}

56: 

57: 

58: \begin{titlepage}

59: \begin{flushright}

60: KA-TP-17-2008 

61: \end{flushright}

62: \vspace{0.6cm}

63: 

64: \begin{center}

65: \Large{Center-vortex loops with one selfintersection}

66: 

67: \vspace{1.5cm}

68: 

69: \large{Julian Moosmann and Ralf Hofmann}

70: \end{center}

71: \vspace{1.5cm} 

72: 

73: \begin{center}

74: {\em Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik\\ 

75: Universit\"at Karlsruhe (TH)\\ 

76: Kaiserstr. 12\\ 

77: 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany}

78: \end{center}

79: \vspace{1.5cm}

80: 

81: \begin{abstract}

82: We investigate the 2D behavior of one-fold selfintersecting, 

83: topologically stabilized center-vortex loops in the confining phase of

84: an SU(2) Yang-Mills theory. This coarse-graining is described by

85: curve-shrinking evolution of center-vortex loops immersed in a flat 

86: 2D plane driving the renormalization-group flow of an effective

87: `action'. We observe that the system evolves into a highly ordered 

88: state at finite noise level, and we speculate that this feature is connected

89: with 2D planar high $T_c$ superconductivity in

90: $FeAs$ systems.  

91: 

92: \end{abstract} 

93: 

94: \end{titlepage}

95: 

96: \section{Introduction}

97: 

98: The idea of a nontrivial ground state being responsible 

99: for the emergence of `elementary' particles is a rather old 

100: one: Already Lord Kelvin proposed 

101: that atoms and molecules should be considered 

102: knotted lines of vortices representing distortions in 

103: a universal medium (or ground state) -- the ether \cite{Kelvin}. As we know now, 

104: the physics of atoms and molecules is described in terms of a much more efficient and elegant framework: Quantum

105: mechanics. The agent responsible for the 

106: chemical bond -- Kelvin's electron -- is considered a spinning point 

107: particle in quantum mechanics, and this yields an 

108: excellent description of atomic physics, 

109: collider physics, and for the bulk of situations in 

110: condensed matter physics.  

111: 

112: There are, however, theoretical discrepancies with the 

113: concept of the electron being a point particle, and there are 

114: exceptional experimental situations pointing to the limitations of this 

115: concept to describe reality. As for the former, we have the old problem of a diverging classical 

116: selfenergy not resolved in quantum 

117: electrodynamics where the electron mass is introduced 

118: as a free parameter whose running with 

119: resolution needs an experimental boundary condition. On the other 

120: hand, the two-dimensional dynamics of strongly 

121: correlated electrons in condensed matter physics signals  

122: the relevance of nonlocal effects possibly related to the 

123: nontrivial anatomy of the electron 

124: becoming relevant in collective phenomena 

125: \cite{Muller1986,Anderson2005}. Also, recent 

126: high-temperature plasma experiments indicate 

127: unexpected explosive behavior not unlikely 

128: related to the mechanism for lepton emergence, see \cite{Zpinch} and 

129: references therein. 

130: 

131: Recent developments in understanding the 

132: confining phase of an SU(2) Yang-Mills 

133: theory suggest that Kelvin's 

134: ideas may actually be realized in 

135: Nature, see also \cite{FaddeevNiemi}. The authors of 

136: \cite{FaddeevNiemi} construct a plausible effective low-energy action for the 

137: 4D SU(2) Yang-Mills theory with solutions to the associated field

138: equations representing closed confining strings 

139: knotted into stable solitons. In the thermodynamic approach of 

140: \cite{Hofmann2005} the emergence 

141: of magnetic center-vortex loops (CVLs) is related

142: to discontinuous phase changes 

143: of a complex order parameter for confinement across the (downward) Hagedorn 

144: transition and the fact that no magnetic 

145: charges exist where these flux lines could end. Also, it was discussed in

146: \cite{Hofmann2005} how the 

147: locations of topologically stabilized selfintersection represent 

148: isolated, spinning magnetic charges \footnote{Notice that with respect to

149: the electromagnetic U(1) of the Standard Model there is a dual

150: interpretation of magnetic charges emerging in an SU(2) Yang-Mills theory.}. 

151: 

152: In our previous article \cite{MH2008} we have 

153: investigated 

154: the sector with $N=0$ selfintersections by 

155: considering a resolution dependent 

156: ensemble average. The corresponding weight-functional 

157: is defined purely in terms of the planar curves's 

158: geometry. The resolution dependence of this geometry, 

159: in turn, is determined by a 

160: curve-shrinking equation (heat-equation)

161: \cite{GageHamilton,Grayson}. The validity of this description of spatial 

162: coarse-graining is motivated from considerations

163: relating local curvature with the direction and speed of `motion' of the associated 

164: line-segment. The requirement that 

165: the partition function over a given ensemble of 

166: planar curves is invariant under a change of 

167: the resolution then yields the 

168: renormalization-group evolution 

169: of the weight-functional which is written as the exponential 

170: of an `action'. Here the term `action' is slightly misleading 

171: since we do not aim at describing the time-evolution of the 

172: system by demanding stationarity of the `action' under curve variation. 

173: To do the latter, a model, which 

174: relates resolution and time (being a macroscopic concept associated with

175: the measuring apparatus), needs to be introduced. We thus 

176: regard resolution over time as the more fundamental quantity to describe

177: certain subatomic systems. Our observation 

178: is that the effective `action' exhibits a transition 

179: towards dilational invariance after a 

180: finite, critical decrease of resolution. 

181: On average, CVLs with $N=0$ are shrunk to circular 

182: points for a resolution less than the critical value which defacto removes them 

183: from the spectrum and thus generates an asymptotic mass gap\footnote{CVLs with $N>0$ are massive \cite{Hofmann2005,Hofmann2007}.}. Knowing

184: the evolution of the weight-functional, one is in a position to compute

185: the resolution dependence of `observables' as ensemble averages of the

186: associated (nonlocal or local) `operators'. As for the evolution 

187: of the initially sharp center-of-mass position, 

188: we observe a spread of the variance with decreasing resolution

189: saturating at a finite value. This is 

190: similar to the unitary free-particle evolution of a position eigenstate

191: in quantum mechanics.      

192: 

193: The purpose of the present article is to extend the procedure 

194: of \cite{MH2008} to the case of $N=1$. We now have a 

195: singled-out point on the curve: the location of 

196: the selfintersection where practically the entire mass of the soliton

197: resides \cite{Hofmann2005}. Setting the Yang-Mills 

198: scale $\Lambda$ of the SU(2) theory equal to the electron mass $m_e=511\,$keV,

199: which in turn determines the mass of the intersection point, 

200: we interprete this soliton as an electron or a positron 

201: \cite{Zpinch,Hofmann2007}. In the presence of a static 

202: electric or magnetic background field it is physically possible to lift

203: the two-fold degeneracy w.r.t. the two possible directions of

204: center-flux: The soliton exhibits a two-fold spin degeneracy. 

205: Notice that as long 

206: as both wings of center flux are of finite size the 

207: position of the intersection point can be shifted 

208: at almost no cost of energy. In particular, 

209: if the inner 

210: angle $\alpha$ between in- and out-going 

211: center-flux at the intersection is sufficiently small then a motion of points on the

212: vortex line directed perpendicular to the bisecting line of the angle

213: $\alpha$ easily generates 

214: a velocity of the intersection point which exceeds the speed of light, see

215: Fig.\,\ref{Fig-1}. Recall, that the path-integral formulation of quantum

216: mechanics admits such superluminal motion in the sense that the

217: according trajectories sizably contribute to transition amplitudes. 

218: %***********************

219: \begin{figure}

220: \centering

221: \vspace{3cm}

222: \special{psfile=Fig-1.eps angle=0 voffset=5 hoffset=50 hscale=100 vscale=80}

223: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-1}}Points on the center flux lines moving

224:   oppositely on a line perpendicular to the bisecting line of the angle 

225: $\alpha$ with velocity modulus $v_1$. For sufficiently small $\alpha$ 

226: the velocity modulus $v_2$ of the intersection point is superluminal: 

227: $v_2=v_1\cot{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$.}

228: \end{figure}

229: %************************ 

230: 

231: The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.\,\ref{CFW} we discuss the

232: physics associated with the emergence of topologically stabilized

233: CVLs with intersection number $N=1$, and how their

234: spatial 2D coarse-graining is captured by a curve-shrinking flow. Some

235: mathematical results on the properties of this flow for 

236: immersed curves, which are relevant for our subsequent numerical

237: analysis, are briefly discussed. Also, we repeat our discussion in

238: \cite{MH2008} of how the renormalization-group flow of an effective

239: `action' is driven by the curve-shrinking evolution of the members of a

240: given ensemble of curves. In Sec.\,\ref{ROF} we explain our numerical 

241: analysis concerning the computation of the effective `action', the

242: variance of the location of the selfintersection, and the entropy

243: associated with a given ensemble. Finally, in Sec.\,\ref{SIC} we

244: summarize our results and interprete them in view of certain 2D layered, 

245: quasimetallic systems exhibiting high-$T_c$ superconductivity.     

246: 

247: \section{Conceptual framework\label{CFW}}

248: 

249: \subsection{Selfintersecting center-vortex loops}

250: \label{SCVL}

251: 

252: The transition from the non-selfintersecting to the selfintersecting CVL sector 

253: is by twisting of non-selfinteresecting curves. The emergence of a localized 

254: (anti)monopole in the process is due to its capture by oppositely

255: directed center fluxes in the intersection core (eye of the storm). 

256: By a rotation of the left half-plane in Fig.\,\ref{Fig-2}(a) by an angle of

257: $\pi$, see Fig.\,\ref{Fig-2}(b), each wing of the CVLs forms 

258: a closed flux loop by itself thereby introducing equally 

259: directed center fluxes at the intersection point. This does 

260: not allow for an isolation of a single, spinning (anti)monopole in the core of

261: the intersection and thus is topologically equivalent to the 

262: untwisted case Fig.\,\ref{Fig-2}(a). However, another rotation of the

263: left-most half-plane in Fig.\,\ref{Fig-2}(c) introduces an intermediate 

264: loop which by shrinking is capable of isolating a spinning

265: (anti)monopole due to oppositely directed center fluxes. Notice that in

266: the last stage of such a shrinking process (short distances 

267: between the cores of the flux lines), where propagating dual gauge 

268: modes are available\footnote{On large distances these modes are

269:   infinitely massive which is characteristic of the confining phase.},

270: there is repulsion due to Biot-Savart which needs to be overcome. This

271: necessitates an investment of energy manifesting itself in terms of the

272: mass of the isolated (anti)monopole (eye of the storm). Alternatively, 

273: the emergence of an isolated (anti)monopole is possible by a simple pinching 

274: of the untwisted curve, again having to overcome local repulsion in the

275: final stage of this process. 

276: 

277: For the analysis performed in the present work we solely 

278: regard the situation depicted in Fig.\,\ref{Fig-2}(d) and thus no longer

279: need to discuss the direction of center flux within a given curve

280: segment: This is not relevant for the process of a spatial

281: coarse-graining microscopically described by the same curve-shrinking

282: flow as applied to sector with $N=0$ \cite{MH2008}. 

283: %***********************

284: \begin{figure}

285: \centering

286: \vspace{9cm}

287: \special{psfile=Fig-2.eps angle=0 voffset=5 hoffset=0 hscale=83 vscale=75}

288: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-2}}(Topological) transition from the $N=0$

289:   sector (a), (b), (c) to the $N=1$ sector (d) by twisting and

290:   subsequent capture of a magnetic (anti)monopole in the core of 

291:   the final intersection. Arrows indicate the direction of center flux.}

292: \end{figure}

293: %************************ 

294: 

295: 

296: \subsection{Euclidean curve shrinking flow}

297: \label{ECSF}

298: 

299: Notice that by immersing an SU(2) CVL with finite core size $d$ and mass $m_d$ of the dual gauge field into a 

300: flat 2D surface at $m_D<\infty$, $d>0$, a hypothetic observer measuring a positive (negative) 

301: curvature of a segment of the vortex line experiences more (less)

302: negative pressure in the intermediate vicinity of this curve segment

303: leading to its motion towards (away from) the observer, see Fig.\,\ref{Fig-3}. 

304: %***********************

305: \begin{figure}

306: \begin{center}

307: \vspace{6cm}

308: \special{psfile=Fig-3.eps angle=0 voffset=-45 hoffset=-10 hscale=140  vscale=140}

309: \end{center}

310: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-3}}Highly space-resolved snapshot of a CVL

311:   segment. The pressure $P_i$ in the region pointed to by the normal

312:   vector $\vec{n}$ is more negative than the pressure $P_e$ thus leading to a motion of the segment along $\vec{n}$.}

313: \end{figure}

314: %************************ 

315: The (inward directed) speed of a point in the core of the vortex will be a monotonic function of the 

316: curvature at this point. On average, this shrinks the CVL. Alternatively, one may {\sl globally}

317: consider the limit $m_D\to\infty$, $d\to 0$,

318: that is, the confining phase of an SU(2) Yang-Mills theory, 

319: but now take into account the effects of an environment which 

320: {\sl locally} relaxes this limit (by collisions) and thus also induces

321: curve shrinking. This situation is described by the 

322: following equation for a flow in the (dimensionless) parameter 

323: $\tau$    

324: %*********

325: \eqb

326: \label{CSt}

327: \partial_\tau \vec{x}=\frac{1}{\sigma}\,\partial^2_s \vec{x}\,,

328: \eqe

329: %**********

330: where $s$ is arc length, $\vec{x}$ is a point on the CVL in the plane, and 

331: $\sigma$ is a string tension effectively 

332: expressing the distortions induced by the environment. After a rescaling,

333: $\hat{x}\equiv\sqrt{\sigma}\vec{x}$, $\xi=\sqrt{\sigma}s$,

334: Eq.\,(\ref{CSt}) assumes the following form

335: %*********

336: \eqb

337: \label{CSta}

338: \partial_\tau \hat{x}(u,\tau)=\partial^2_\xi \hat{x}=k(u,\tau)\vec{n}(u,\tau)\,,

339: \eqe

340: %**********

341: where $u$ is a (dimensionless) curve parameter, $\vec{n}$ 

342: the (inward-pointing) Euclidean unit normal, $k$ the scalar curvature, defined as 

343: %*********

344: \eqb

345: \label{curvdef}

346: k\equiv\left|\partial^2_\xi \hat{x}\right|

347: =\left|\frac{1}{|\partial_u\hat{x}|}\partial_u\left(\frac{1}{|\partial_u\hat{x}|}\partial_u\hat{x}\right)\right|\,,

348: \eqe

349: %**********

350: $|\vec{v}|\equiv\sqrt{\vec{v}\cdot\vec{v}}$, and $\vec{v}\cdot\vec{w}$ 

351: denotes the Euclidean scalar product of the vectors $\vec{v}$ and

352: $\vec{w}$. In the following we resort to a slight abuse of notation by

353: using the same symbol $\hat{x}$ for the functional dependence on $u$ or

354: $\xi$. 

355: 

356: We now consider curves with one selfintersection, that is $N=1$, in the sense of the

357: stable situation of Fig.\,\ref{Fig-2}(d). This situation was

358: mathematically analysed in \cite{GraysonII}. Since the direction of center

359: flux is inessential for the shrinking process we may actually treat this

360: situation in a way as depicted in Fig.\,\ref{Fig-2}(b), where the curve is 

361: defined to be a smooth immersion into the plane with exactly

362: one double point and a total rotation number zero, $\int_{0}^{L} k

363: \, d\xi = 0$. Here the (dimensionless) curve length $L$ is given by the smooth

364: integration $L(\tau)=\int_0^{L(\tau)} d\xi=\int_0^{2\pi}

365: du\,\left|\partial_u\hat{x}(u,\tau)\right|$. Notice that 

366: this is topologically distinct from the case 

367: Fig.\,\ref{Fig-2}(d) where one encounters a nonvanishing 

368: rotation number which is not smoothly deformable to zero. 

369: 

370: In the $N=0$ case a smooth, embedded curve 

371: shrinks to a circular point under the flow for $\tau \nearrow

372: T<\infty$ \cite{GageHamilton,Grayson}. That is, the isoperimetric ratio approaches $4\pi$ from

373: above. The curve in situation Fig.\,\ref{Fig-2}(b) 

374: separates the plane into three disjoint areas two of

375: which are finite and denoted by $A_1$ and $A_2$. We understand by $T$ the

376: finite, critical value of $\tau$ where either $A_1$ or $A_2$ or both 

377: vanish. This corresponds to a singularity encountered and thus

378: terminates the flow.

379: 

380: Recall that in the $N=0$ case the rate of area change is a constant,

381: $\frac{dA}{d\tau}=-2\pi$. This is no longer true for $N=1$. 

382: However, we have that

383: %***********

384: \eqb

385: \label{diffA}

386: A_1(\tau)-A_2(\tau)=\mbox{const}\,. 

387: \eqe

388: %*********

389: Also, for $N=1$ we have in comparison to the $N=0$ case the more relaxed constraint that

390: $-4\pi\le\frac{d(A_1+A_2)}{d\tau}\le -2\pi$.

391: 

392: In contrast to the $N=0$ case the isoperimetric ratio for the $N=1$ case

393: is bounded for $\tau \nearrow T$ if and only if $A_1\not=A_2$. Notice that the case

394: $A_1=A_2$ physically is extremely fine-tuned.   

395: 

396: \subsection{Effective `action'}

397: \label{EA}

398: 

399: We now wish to interprete curve-shrinking as a Wilsonian

400: renormalization-group flow taking place in the $N=1$ 

401: CVL sector in the sense defined in Sec.\,\ref{ECSF}. A partition function, 

402: defined as a statistical average (according to a suitably defined weight) over $N=1$ 

403: CVLs, is to be left invariant under a decrease of the 

404: resolution determined by the flow parameter $\tau$. 

405: Notice that, physically, $\tau$ is interpreted as a strictly

406: monotonic decreasing (dimensionless) 

407: function of a ratio $\frac{Q}{Q_0}$ where $Q$ ($Q_0$) are mass 

408: scales associated with an actual (initial) resolution applied to the

409: system. The role of $Q$ can also be played by the 

410: finite temperature of a reservoir coupled to the system. 

411: 

412: To device a geometric ansatz for the 

413: effective `action' $S=S[\hat{x}(\tau)]$, which is a functional of the

414: curve $\hat{x}$ representable in terms 

415: of integrals over local densities in $\xi$ (reparametrization

416: invariance), the following reflection on symmetries is in order.  

417: (i) scaling symmetry $\hat{x}\to \lambda\hat{x}\,,\ \ \lambda\in{\mathbf

418:   R}_+$: For $\lambda\to\infty$, implying

419: $\lambda L\to\infty$ at fixed $L$, the `action' $S$ should 

420: be invariant under further finite rescalings (decoupling of the fixed

421: length scales $\sigma^{-1/2}$ and $\Lambda^{-1}$), 

422: (ii) Euclidean point symmetry of the plane (rotations, translations

423: and reflections about a given axis): Sufficient but not necessary for

424: this is a representation of $S$ in terms of integrals over 

425: scalar densities w.r.t. these symmetries. That is, 

426: the `action' density should be expressible as a

427: series involving products of Euclidean scalar products of $\frac{\partial^n}{\partial

428:     \xi^n}\hat{x}\,,\ \ n\in\mathbf{N}_+\,,$ or constancy. 

429: However, an exceptional scalar integral over a nonscalar density can be 

430: deviced. Consider the area $A$, calculated as 

431: %*********

432: \eqb

433: \label{area}

434: A=\left|\frac12\,\int_0^{2\pi} d\xi\,\hat{x}\cdot\vec{n}\right|\,.

435: \eqe

436: %*********  

437: The density $\hat{x}\cdot\vec{n}$ in Eq.\,(\ref{area}) is not a scalar under

438: translations. 

439: 

440: We now resort to a factorization ansatz as 

441: %*********

442: \eqb

443: \label{effectactdef}

444: S=F_c\times F_{nc}\,,

445: \eqe

446: %**********

447: where in addition to Euclidean point symmetry $F_c$ ($F_{nc}$) is (is not) invariant 

448: under $\hat{x}\to \lambda\hat{x}$. In principle, 

449: infinitely many operators can be defined to contribute to $F_c$. 

450: Since the evolution homogenizes the curvature except 

451: for a small vicinity of the intersection point higher derivatives of 

452: $k$ w.r.t. $\xi$ should not be of importance. We expect this to be true 

453: also for Euclidean scalar products involving higher 

454: derivatives $\frac{\partial^n}{\partial \xi^n}\hat{x}$. 

455: To yield conformally invariant expressions such integrals need to be 

456: multiplied by powers of $\sqrt{A}$ and/or $L$ or the inverse of 

457: integrals involving lower derivatives. At this stage, we are 

458: not capable of constraining the expansion in derivatives by additional physical or

459: mathematical arguments. To be pragmatic, 

460: we simply set $F_c$ equal to the isoperimetric ratio:

461: %*********

462: \eqb

463: \label{explFc}

464: F_c(\tau)\equiv\frac{L(\tau)^2}{A(\tau)}\,.

465: \eqe

466: %*********

467: We conceive the nonconformal factor $F_{nc}$ in $S$ as a formal Taylor expansion in inverse powers of 

468: $L$ or $A\equiv A_1+A_2$ due to the property of conformal invariance for $L,A\to\infty$.

469: 

470: Since we regard the renormalization-group evolution of the

471: effective `action' as induced by the flow of an ensemble of curves, where the evolution of each member is

472: dictated by Eq.\,(\ref{CSta}), we allow for an explicit $\tau$

473: dependence of the coefficient $c$ of the lowest nontrivial power

474: $\frac{1}{L}$ or $1/A$. In principle, this sums up the contribution to $F_{nc}$ of certain 

475: higher-power operators which do not exhibit an explicit $\tau$

476: dependence. Hence we make the following ansatz 

477: %********

478: \eqb

479: \label{explFnc}

480: F_{nc}(\tau)=1+\frac{c(\tau)}{L(\tau)}\,.

481: \eqe

482: %*******

483: The initial value $c(\tau=0)$ is determined from a physical 

484: boundary condition such as the mean length $\bar{L}$ at $\tau=0$.

485: 

486: \subsection{Geometric partition function}

487: \label{GPF}

488: 

489: Let us now numerically investigate the effective `action'

490: $S[\hat{x}(\tau)]$ resulting from a 

491: partition function $Z$ w.r.t. a nontrivial ensemble $E$. The latter is defined as the average

492: %*******

493: \eqb

494: \label{PartZM}

495: Z=\sum_{i} \exp\left(-S[\hat{x}_i(\tau)]\right)

496: \eqe

497: %*******

498: over the ensemble $E=\{\hat{x}_1,\cdots\}$. 

499: Let us denote by $E_M$ an ensemble consisting of $M$ curves where 

500: $E_M$ is obtained from $E_{M-1}$ by adding a new curve

501: $\hat{x}_M(u,\tau)$. The effective `action' $S$ in

502: Eq.\,(\ref{effectactdef}) (when associated with the ensemble $E_M$ we

503: will denote it by $S_M$) is determined by the function $c_M(\tau)$,

504: compare with Eq.\,(\ref{explFnc}), whose 

505: flow follows from the requirement of $\tau$-independence of $Z_M$:

506: %********

507: \eqb

508: \label{renflow}

509: \frac{d}{d\tau}Z_M=0\,.

510: \eqe 

511: %*******

512: This is an implicit, first-order ordinary differential equation 

513: for $c(\tau)$ which needs to be supplemented with an initial condition

514: $c_{0,M}=c_M(\tau=0)$. A natural initial condition is to 

515: demand that the quantity 

516: %********

517: \eqb

518: \label{barL}

519: \bar{L}_M(\tau=0)\equiv\frac{1}{Z_M(\tau=0)}\sum_{i=1}^M

520: L[\hat{x}_i(\tau=0)]\,\exp\left(-S_M[\hat{x}_i(\tau=0)]\right)

521: \eqe

522: %*******

523: coincides with the geometric mean $\tilde{L}_M(\tau=0)$ defined as 

524: %**********

525: \eqb

526: \label{geommean}

527: \tilde{L}_M(\tau=0)\equiv\frac{1}{M}\sum_{i=1}^M L[\hat{x}_i(\tau=0)]\,.

528: \eqe

529: %********** 

530: From $\bar{L}_M(\tau=0)=\tilde{L}_M(\tau=0)$ a value for $c_{0,M}$

531: follows. We also have considered a modified factor

532: %********

533: \eqb

534: \label{explFncmod}

535: F_{nc}(\tau)=1+\frac{c(\tau)}{A(\tau)}\,.

536: \eqe

537: %*******

538: in Eq.\,(\ref{effectactdef}). While the ansatz for the geometric effective `action' 

539: thus is profoundly different for such a modification 

540: of $F_{nc}(\tau)$ physical results such 

541: as the evolution of the variance of the intersection agree

542: remarkably well, see Sec.\,\ref{ROF}.

543: 

544: \section{Results of simulation}

545: \label{ROF}

546: 

547: \subsection{Preparation of ensembles}

548: 

549: Similar as in \cite{MH2008} we normalize all curves to have the same

550: initial area $A_0=A_{0,1}+A_{0,2}$ and, since we are now interested in the position of the

551: intersection where the (anti)monopole is localized, we have applied a

552: translation to each curves in the ensembles $E_M$ such that the location

553: of the intersections initially coincide with the origin. 

554: 

555: Since the critical value $T$ of the flow parameter $\tau$ 

556: varies from curve to curve we order the members of the maximal-size ensemble 

557: $E_{M=16}$ into subensembles $E_{M<16}$ such that $T_{i=1}\ge T_{i=2}\ge\cdots\ge

558: T_M$. The types of ensembles $E_M$ obtained in this way are referred to as

559: $T$-ordered. We also have performed all simulations with ensembles

560: $E^\prime_{M<16}$ whose members are picked randomly from $E_{M=16}$ and

561: have obtained strikingly similar results for ensemble averages of

562: `observables' using $E_{M<16}$ and

563: $E^\prime_{M<16}$ for the $\tau$ evolution to the left of

564: $\tau=\min\{T_i|\hat{x}_i\in E^\prime_{M<16}\}$. 

565: 

566: The maximal-size ensemble $E_{M=16}$ at $\tau=0$ is depicted 

567: in Fig.\,\ref{Fig-4} with the universal choice $A_0=200\,\pi$. The curves 

568: in Fig.\,\ref{Fig-4} are arranged in a $T$-ordered way. We have 

569: $T_{i=1}=65\ge T_{i=2}\ge\cdots\ge T_M=43$. 

570: %***********************

571: \begin{figure}

572: \centering

573: \vspace{9.5cm}

574: \special{psfile=Fig-4.eps angle=0 voffset=-5 hoffset=-5 hscale=40 vscale=40}

575: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-4}}Initial curves $\hat{x}_i(u,\tau=0)$ contributing to the

576:   ensemble $E_{M=16}$. The intersection points coincide with

577:   the origin, and all curves have the same area $200\,\pi$. By

578:   definition $E_{M=16}$ is $T$-ordered.}

579: \end{figure}

580: %************************ 

581: In Fig.\,\ref{Fig-5} the evolution of an initial curve 

582: under curve shrinking is shown from two view points. The flow is started at $\tau=0$ and

583: stopped at a value of $\tau$ shortly below $T$.  

584: %***********************

585: \begin{figure}

586: \centering

587: \vspace{8cm}

588: \special{psfile=Fig-5.eps angle=0 voffset=-5 hoffset=-15 hscale=90 vscale=90}

589: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-5}}Plot of the evolution of an $N=1$ CVL (curve 12 of Fig.\,\ref{Fig-4}) under 

590: Eq.\,(\ref{CSta}). The thick central line indicates the trajectory 

591:   of the intersection point which coincides with the origin at $\tau=0$.}

592: \end{figure}

593: %************************

594: In Fig.\,\ref{Fig-7} the flow of the intersection points, corresponding

595: to the initial curves depicted in Fig.\,\ref{Fig-4}, is shown. 

596: %***********************

597: \begin{figure}

598: \centering

599: \vspace{7.5cm}

600: \special{psfile=Fig-7.eps angle=0 voffset=-5 hoffset=25 hscale=110 vscale=80}

601: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-7}}Flow of the intersection points for the

602:   initial curves depicted in Fig.\,\ref{Fig-4}.}

603: \end{figure}

604: %************************

605: The search for solutions to the second-order PDE Eq.\,(\ref{CSta}) subject to periodic boundary

606: conditions in the curve parameter,

607: $\hat{x}(u=0,\tau=0)=\hat{x}(u=2\pi,\tau=0)$, 

608: and for the initial conditions $\hat{x}(u,\tau=0)$

609: depicted in Fig.\,\ref{Fig-4} was performed numerically using the method of

610: lines. That is, the PDE was discretized on a uniform

611: grid in the parameter $u$ yielding a semi-discrete problem in terms of a

612: system of ODEs in $\tau$ which was solved using Mathematica. Fig.\,\ref{Fig-5} indicates why this technique is called

613: the numerical method of lines. As one can also see from Fig.\,\ref{Fig-5},

614: a set of discrete points on the curve, although remaining equidistant in $u$, may evolve under the

615: flow such that the spatial distances between next-neighbours-points falls below the

616: numerical precision. Numerically, the flow then encounters a singularity (not to confused

617: with the earlier mentioned nonfictitious singularities). To recognize such a situation

618: automatically, Eq.\,(\ref{diffA}) was exploited: The evolution

619: was stopped as soon as a sizable deviation occured from what

620: Eq.\,(\ref{diffA}) predicts. The configuration obtained at this point in

621: $\tau$ was fitted in such a way that a new discretization in $u$ yielded 

622: well separated points to re-start the methods of lines. 

623: Eq.\,(\ref{diffA}) was also used as an indicator for the final

624: singularity at $T$ where $A_1$ or $A_2$ or both vanish.

625: 

626: 

627: %To setup the ODE for the coefficient $c(\tau)$ (Eq.\,\ref{renflow} and

628: %for further computations, the data obtained solving Eq.\,\ref{CSta} 

629: %was fitted by polynomials in $\tau$ for the

630: %variables $L(\tau)$, $A(\tau)$ and $\hat{x}_{int}(\tau)$.

631: 

632: \subsection{Renormalization-group invariance of partition function}

633: 

634: For all ensembles $E_M$ the $\tau$ dependence of the coefficient $c_M$

635: in Eq.\,(\ref{explFnc}) roughly behaves like a square root 

636: $\propto\sqrt{T_M-\tau}$ where  $T_M$ is the weakly ensemble-dependent minimal 

637: resolution. For the modified `action' 

638: $S_M=\frac{L(t)^2}{A(t)}\left (1+\frac{c_M(t)}{A(t)}\right)$ 

639: the coefficient $c_M$ is well approximated by a linear function $\propto

640: T_M-\tau$. Again, $T_M$ denotes a weakly ensemble-dependent minimal 

641: resolution. For $T$-ordered

642: ensembles the results for $c_M$ for the `actions' Eq.\,(\ref{explFnc}) and 

643: Eq.\,(\ref{explFncmod}) are shown in Figs.\,\ref{Fig-6a} 

644: and \ref{Fig-6b}, respectively. The results for ensembles

645: $E^\prime_M$ do not differ sizably from those presented in

646: Figs.\,(\ref{Fig-6a}), (\ref{Fig-6b}).

647: %***********************

648: \begin{figure}

649: \centering

650: \vspace{8.2cm}

651: \special{psfile=Fig-6a.eps angle=0 voffset=-5 hoffset=-5 hscale=42 vscale=42}

652: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-6a}}The squares of the coefficients 

653:   $c_M(\tau)$ entering the ansatz for effective `action' of

654:   Eq.\,(\ref{effectactdef}) specializing to Eq.\,(\ref{explFnc}) for

655:   $T$-ordered ensembles up to $M=16$.}

656: \end{figure}

657: %************************

658: %***********************

659: \begin{figure}

660: \centering

661: \vspace{8cm}

662: \special{psfile=Fig-6b.eps angle=0 voffset=-7 hoffset=-5 hscale=42 vscale=42}

663: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-6b}}The coefficient

664:   $c_M(\tau)$ entering the ansatz for the effective `action' of

665:   Eq.\,(\ref{effectactdef}) specializing to Eq.\,(\ref{explFncmod}) for

666:   $T$-ordered ensembles up to $M=16$.}

667: \end{figure}

668: %************************

669: 

670: \subsection{Variance of location of selfintersection\label{var}}

671: 

672: The mean intersection $\bar{\hat{x}}_{\tiny\mbox{int}}$ over the ensemble

673: $E_M$ is defined as

674: %*******

675: \eqb

676: \label{menacom}

677: \bar{\hat{x}}_{\tiny\mbox{int}}(\tau)\equiv\frac{1}{Z_M}\sum_{i=1}^M

678: \hat{x}_{\tiny\mbox{int},i}(\tau)\exp\left(-S_M[\hat{x}_i(\tau)]\right)\,,

679: \eqe

680: %*******

681: where $\hat{x}_{\tiny\mbox{int},i}(\tau)$ is the location of

682: selfintersection (intersection point) of curve $\hat{x}_i$ at $\tau$. 

683: The scalar statistical deviation 

684: $\Delta_{M,\tiny\mbox{int}}$ of $\bar{\hat{x}}_{\tiny\mbox{int}}$ 

685: over the ensemble $E_M$ is defined as

686: %*******

687: \eqb

688: \label{statvar}

689: \Delta_{M,\tiny\mbox{int}}(\tau)\equiv \sqrt{\mbox{var}_{M,\tiny\mbox{int};x}(\tau)+

690: \mbox{var}_{M,\tiny\mbox{int};y}(\tau)}\,,

691: \eqe

692: %*******

693: where 

694: %*******

695: \eab

696: \label{vardef}

697: \mbox{var}_{M,\tiny\mbox{int};x}&\equiv&\frac{1}{Z_M}\sum_{i=1}^M

698: \left(x_{\tiny\mbox{int},i}(\tau)

699: -\bar{x}_{\tiny\mbox{int}}(\tau)\right)^2\,\exp\left(-S_M[\hat{x}_i(\tau)]\right)\nonumber\\ 

700: &=&-\bar{x}^2_{\tiny\mbox{int}}(\tau)+\frac{1}{Z_M}\sum_{i=1}^M x^2_{\tiny\mbox{int},i}(\tau)\,

701: \exp\left(-S_M[\hat{x}_i(\tau)]\right) 

702: \eae

703: %**********

704: and similarly for the coordinate $y$. In Fig.\,\ref{Fig-8a} plots of

705: $\Delta_{M,\tiny\mbox{int}}(\tau)$ are shown when evaluated over the ensembles

706: $E_1,\cdots,E_{16}$ subject to the `action' 

707: %********

708: \dmb

709: S_M=\frac{L(\tau)^2}{A(\tau)}\left(1+\frac{c_M(\tau)}{L(\tau)}\right)

710: \dme

711: %********

712: and the initial condition

713: $\bar{L}_M(\tau=0)=\tilde{L}_M(\tau=0)$. In Fig.\,\ref{Fig-8b} the

714: according plots of $\Delta_{M,\tiny\mbox{int}}(\tau)$ are depicted as 

715: obtained with the `action'

716: %********

717: \dmb 

718: S_M=\frac{L(\tau)^2}{A(\tau)}\left(1+\frac{c_M(\tau)}{A(\tau)}\right)

719: \dme

720: %********

721: and subject to the initial condition

722: $\bar{L}_M(\tau=0)=\tilde{L}_M(\tau=0)$.

723: %***********************

724: \begin{figure}

725: \centering

726: \vspace{8.0cm}

727: \special{psfile=Fig-8a.eps angle=0 voffset=-5 hoffset=-25 hscale=42 vscale=42}

728: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-8a}}Plots of $\Delta_{M,\tiny\mbox{int}}(\tau)$ 

729:   for the $T$-ordered ensembles $E_M$ with $M=1,\cdots,16$. We have

730:   employed the ansatz for the `action'

731:   $S_M=\frac{L(\tau)^2}{A(\tau)}\left(1+\frac{c_M(\tau)}{L(\tau)}\right)$.}

732: \end{figure}

733: %************************

734: %***********************

735: \begin{figure}

736: \centering

737: \vspace{10.4cm}

738: \special{psfile=Fig-8b.eps angle=0 voffset=-5 hoffset=-25 hscale=42 vscale=42}

739: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-8b}}Plots of $\Delta_{M,\tiny\mbox{int}}(\tau)$ 

740:   for the $T$-ordered ensembles $E_M$ with $M=1,\cdots,16$. We have

741:   employed the ansatz for the `action'

742:   $S_M=\frac{L(\tau)^2}{A(\tau)}\left(1+\frac{c_M(\tau)}{A(\tau)}\right)$.}

743:  \end{figure}

744: %************************

745: Relaxing the constraint of $T$-ordering ($E_M\to E^\prime_M$) does 

746: not entail a qualitative change of the results.  

747: 

748: The results presented in Figs. \,\ref{Fig-8a}, \ref{Fig-8b} are

749: unexpected since in the $N=0$ sector the variance of the

750: 'center-of-mass' saturates rapidly to finite

751: values. In contrast, for the $N=1$ sector the variance of the location of

752: selfintersection initially increases, reaches a maximum, and decreases

753: to zero at a {\sl finite} value of $\tau$. This is readily confirmed 

754: by the evaluation of the entropy, see Sec.\,\ref{entr}.  

755: 

756: \subsection{Evolution of entropy\label{entr}}

757: 

758: Let us now evaluate the flow of entropy $\Sigma_M$ defined as

759: %********

760: \eqb

761: \label{entropydef}

762: \Sigma_M(\tau)\equiv\log Z_M+\frac{1}{Z_M}\sum_{i=1}^{M} \exp(-S_M[\hat{x}_i(\tau)])\,S_M[\hat{x}_i(\tau)]

763: \eqe

764: %********

765: where $S_M[\hat{x}_i(\tau)]$ is given by Eq.\,(\ref{effectactdef}). 

766: In Fig.\,\ref{Fig-9} plots are shown for $\Sigma_M(\tau)$

767: $(M=1,\cdots,16$ when evaluated with the `action'  

768: $S_M=\frac{L(\tau)^2}{A(\tau)}\left(1+\frac{c_M(\tau)}{L(\tau)}\right)$

769: for $T$-ordered ensembles of size $M=1,\cdots,16$.

770: These graphs look very much alike to the ones generated 

771: using the `action'

772: $S_M=\frac{L(\tau)^2}{A(\tau)}\left(1+\frac{c_M(\tau)}{A(\tau)}\right)$.

773: Notice the continuous approach to zero at finite 

774: values of $\tau$. This implies that order emerges spontaneously in the

775: system with decreasing resolution: Starting at a finite value of $\tau$, 

776: a particular member of $E_M$ is singled out by its weight approaching 

777: unity. Judging from our results for the $N=0$ sector \cite{MH2008}, 

778: this behavior is highly unexpected. Therefore the nontrivial topology of 

779: $N=1$ induces qualitative differences into the coarse-graining

780: process.      

781: %***********************

782: \begin{figure}

783: \centering

784: \vspace{8cm}

785: \special{psfile=Fig-9.eps angle=0 voffset=-7 hoffset=-5 hscale=42 vscale=42}

786: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-9}} Flow of the entropies $\Sigma_M$ for 

787: $T$-ordered ensembles of size $M=1,\cdots,16$ when evaluated with the `action'

788:   $S_M=\frac{L(\tau)^2}{A(\tau)}\left(1+\frac{c_M(\tau)}{L(\tau)}\right)$. The situation does not change 

789: qualitatively if the `action'

790: $S_M=\frac{L(\tau)^2}{A(\tau)}\left(1+\frac{c_M(\tau)}{A(\tau)}\right)$

791: is used.}

792: \end{figure}

793: %************************

794: 

795: \section{Summary, interpretation of results and, conclusion\label{SIC}}

796: 

797: In this article we have investigated the spatial 

798: coarse-graining of CVLs, immersed in a flat 2D plane, of an SU(2) Yang-Mills 

799: theory being in its confining phase. The focus was on the sector with

800: one topologically stabilized selfintersection (existence of an isolated

801: magnetic charge at its location, $N=1$). We have analysed this coarse-graining

802: process in terms of curve ensembles generated by evolving an initial situation

803: under the curve-shrinking flow \cite{GageHamilton,Grayson,GraysonII}. 

804: The idea here is to suppose that curve shrinking 

805: in the parameter $\tau$ represents an exact coarse-graining of a given

806: initial state and to re-construct the associated ensemble-weight of the

807: statistical approach (exponential of effective `action') by demanding

808: invariance of the corresponding partition function under the flow in

809: $\tau$ (renormalization-group evolution). Notice that $\tau$ is related to a physical resolution, applied to

810: probing the system, in a strictly monotonic decreasing manner. This

811: resolution may be associated with a local momentum transfer exerted by

812: an observer or a globally defined temperature inherent to an

813: environment. The functional dependence of $\tau$ on these physical 

814: parameters depends on the given experimental situation. 

815: It is, however, reasonable to assume that {\sl finite} values of $\tau$

816: universally correspond to {\sl finite} values of these physical parameters.  

817: 

818: In Secs.\,\ref{var},\,\ref{entr} we have obtained the unexpected result 

819: that a statistical ensemble of renormalization-group evolved curves

820: spontaneously orders itself in the sense that, starting from finite values of $\tau$, only a

821: particular member of the ensemble survives the process of 2D spatial

822: coarse-graining. That is, the entropy attributed to the ensemble is

823: practically zero for sufficiently large values of $\tau$. For the

824: location of selfintersection (charge of an electron) this means 

825: that no dissipation of energy, provided by the environment, can be mediated by the monopole

826: situated within the core of the intersection if the 

827: resolution falls below a critical, {\sl finite} value. 

828: This result must drastically depend on the two-dimensionality of 

829: space and the fact that we consider the sector with $N=1$, compare with

830: \cite{MH2008}.  

831: 

832: The recently discovered, unconventional $FeAs$ systems do not appear 

833: to exhibit an explicit, strong correlation between the electrons contained in

834: their theoretically suggested, 2D-superconducting layers, see \cite{KlausBuchner2008}

835: and references therein. If the two-dimensional behavior of

836: noninteracting electrons, subject to an environment 

837: represented by the parameter $\tau$, indeed is described by the

838: coarse-graining process investigated in the present work 

839: then the sudden decrease of entropy that we observe at a {\sl finite}

840: value of $\tau$ should ultimately be connected to this particular kind of high-$T_c$ 

841: superconductivity. Here $\tau$ is a monotonically

842: decreasing function of temperature.             

843: 

844: 

845: 

846: \section*{Acknowledgments}

847: We would like to thank Francesco Giacosa and Markus Schwarz for useful conversations. 

848: 

849: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

850: 

851: \bibitem{Kelvin}

852: W. T. Kelvin and P. G. Tait, {\sl Treatise on Natural Philosophy}, 2

853: vols., Cambridge University Press, 1867.  

854: 

855: \bibitem{Muller1986} 

856: J. G. Bednorz and K. A. M\"uller, Z. Phys. B{\bf 64}, 189 (1986). 

857: 

858: \bibitem{Anderson2005}

859: P. W. Anderson, arXiv:cond-mat/0510053v2.\\ 

860: P. W. Anderson, Physica C{\bf 460-462}, 3 (2007). 

861: 

862: \bibitem{Zpinch}

863: F. Giacosa, R. Hofmann, and M. Schwarz, Mod. Phys. Lett. A{\bf 21}, 2709

864: (2006).

865: 

866: \bibitem{FaddeevNiemi}

867: L. Faddeev and A. J. Niemi, Nature {\bf 387}, 58 (1997).\\ 

868: L. Faddeev and A. J. Niemi, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 1624 (1999).\\ 

869: L. Faddeev and A. J. Niemi, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 525}, 195 (2002).\\ 

870: L. Faddeev and A. J. Niemi, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 776}, 38 (2007).

871: 

872: \bibitem{Hofmann2005}

873: R. Hofmann, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A{\bf 20}, 4123 (2005);

874: Erratum-ibid.A{\bf 21}, 6515 (2006).

875: 

876: \bibitem{MH2008}

877: J. Moosmann and R. Hofmann, hep-th/0804.3527 

878: 

879: \bibitem{GageHamilton}

880: M. Gage and R. S. Hamilton, J. Differential Geometry {\bf 23}, 69

881: (1986). 

882: 

883: \bibitem{Grayson}

884: M. A. Grayson, J. Differential Geometry {\bf 26}, 285

885: (1987). 

886: 

887: \bibitem{Hofmann2007}

888: R. Hofmann, arXiv:0710.0962 [hep-th].

889: 

890: \bibitem{GHS2006}

891: F. Giacosa, R. Hofmann, M. Schwarz, Mod. Phys. Lett. A{\bf 21}, 2709

892: (2006).\\ 

893: R. Hofmann, Mod. Phys. Lett. A{\bf 22} 2657 (2007).

894: 

895: \bibitem{GraysonII}

896: M. A. Grayson, Invent. math. {\bf 96}, 177 (1989). 

897: 

898: 

899: %\bibitem{NO}

900: %H. B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 61}, 45 (1973).

901: 

902: %\bibitem{tHooft1983}

903: %G. 't Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 138}, 1 (1978). 

904: 

905: %\bibitem{Smith}

906: %S. Smith, M. E. Broucke, and B. A. Francis, in proc. 44th IEEE

907: %Conference on Decision and Control, and European Control Conference

908: %2005, Seville, Spain, Dec. 12-15 (2005). 

909: 

910: %\bibitem{PerelmanI}

911: %G. Perelman, math/0211159.

912: 

913: %\bibitem{PerelmanII}

914: %G. Perelman, math/0303109.

915: 

916: %\bibitem{PerelmanIII} 

917: %G. Perelman, math/0307245. 

918: 

919: %\bibitem{Thurston}

920: %W. P. Thurston, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) {\bf 6}, no. 3, 357

921: %(1982). 

922: 

923: %\bibitem{KKG}

924: %H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and I. V. Krivosheina,

925: %Mod. Phys. Lett. A{\bf 21}, 1547 (2006).\\ 

926: %H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D{\bf 13}, 2107

927: %(2004).\\ 

928: %H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, I.V. Krivosheina, A. Dietz, and 

929: %O. Chkvorets, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 586} 198 (2004).

930: 

931: %\bibitem{BosiCavalleri2002}

932: %L. Bosi and G. Cavalleri, Nuovo Cim. (note brevi) {\bf 117} B, 243 (2002).  

933: 

934: %\bibitem{GiacosaHofmann2005}

935: %F. Giacosa and R. Hofmann, Eur. Phys. J. C{\bf 50}, 635 (2007)

936: %[hep-th/0512184].

937: 

938: \bibitem{KlausBuchner2008}

939: H.-H. Klauss and B. B\"uchner, Physik Journal {\bf 7}, 18 (2008). 

940: 

941: \end{thebibliography}

942: 

943: \end{document}

944: